The Role of a Buyer: Failure to Communicate Acceptance

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Response to John W Roberts’s Arguments
Response to Desi Johnson Johnson’s Argument
Reference

The business situation Mary finds herself requires a delicate balance. The goods received by Mary were nonconforming to those specified in the contract. Mary failed to fulfill one of the most significant roles of a buyer, that of communicating acceptance. Under UCC Article 2, the failure to communicate acceptance of supplied goods within a reasonable time gives the seller an impression that the buyer has accepted the goods (Clarkson, Miller, Cross & Clarkson, 2012). Therefore, Mary can only use the UCC Article on modification in seeking seller’s cooperation in good faith. UCC also requires buyers to identify future goods before acceptance. Mary failed to identify the physical characteristics of the clothing. The risk of loss was immediately passed to Mary when she decided to keep quiet and instead sell the defective goods.

However, Mary has numerous options on how she can deal with this situation. She can take advantage of the aspect of reasonable time to decline the order since it fails to meet the regulations of perfect tender (Clarkson et al., 2012). The order failed to conform to the contractual agreement because of supplying fewer royal blue clothes and white shorts. Mary can also sue the seller on the basis of product liability. The shirts supplied by the seller are already proven as being able to cause lung cancer to consumers. Mary cannot wait to take responsibility for defective clothing that are injurious to the health of the consumers. The seller is also liable negligence lawsuits because of failing to exercise due care to the potential consumers who are likely to develop lung cancer. The manufacturer failed to use suitable production processes and failed to provide sufficient warnings on the shirts to inform consumers on the potential dangers (Clarkson et al., 2012). Furthermore, Mary could sue for misrepresentation and supply unreasonably dangerous clothing into the market. These are opportunities that Mary could exhaust to ensure that she recovers the losses and ensure the health and safety of the public.

Response to John W Roberts’s Arguments

The response by John reflects the many options that are available to Mary to explore. The goods supplied by the seller failed to conform to the contractual agreement. Although, Mary also failed to ensure due diligence by reading all the aspects of the contract while ordering the clothing, she can still reject the order in its entirety as provided for under the perfect contract regulation. Mary can also minimize her losses through adopting the right to recover damages on already accepted supplies (Clarkson et al., 2012). Her argument would focus on the fact that the seller supplied nonconforming and defective clothing that have serious health and safety risks for users.

Response to Desi Johnson Johnson’s Argument

Mary failed in the first instance in understanding the contract terms. The clause on the contract signifies that all sales are deemed completed even if sold products have defects and clears sellers from any responsibility (Clarkson et al., 2012). This is a critical contract issue overlooked by Mary. The common UCC contract laws, the buyer have reasonable time to inspect and reject nonconforming goods. The reasonable time within which a buyer can decline supplied order remains the most significant way Mary can make claims for nonconforming goods. Every buyer has the right to reject supplies that do not conform to the contract specifications and she needs to exploit this provision before the lapse of the reasonable time (Clarkson et al., 2012). Furthermore, the supplied clothing has defects, which raises issues of product liability. Mary can explore all the provisions about product and strict liability to develop a strong suit against the seller.

Reference

Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R. L. R., Cross, F. B., & Clarkson, K. W. (2012). Business law: Text and cases: legal, ethical, global, and corporate environment. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Role of a Buyer: Failure to Communicate Acceptance

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)